Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not...come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

This is a common argument and certainly not an unimportant one. Should we be focussing our attention on helping animals when there is so much to do to help people?

Is it possible that the two ideas are more closely intertwined than it may appear on the surface? May it be that when we can show compassion to a sentient non-human, we are better able to do the same for one of our own kind?

It is a conjecture which I am making for consideration, but here are some quotations from people who are fairly well-known in history who have said similar things:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men."
Francis of Assisi, saint

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."
Pythagoras, philosopher and mathematician

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
Thomas Edison, inventor

"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
Albert Schweitzer, missionary and statesman, Nobel 1952


Perhaps it is only by acquiring compassion for and showing compassion to, the helpless who can least ask for it, that we can achieve the integrity our own species is capable of.

In friendship,
prad

 

[darkmage]

Mankind will always be violent. There will always be useless fighting and killing, because this is simply the nature of man.

Moving on to a different point, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat. Killing a plant is almost no different from killing an animal (the only difference being that an animal has a mind). So why not kill an animal instead of a plant? The fact that an animal has a mind is not a strong enough argument to persuade me.

 

[motai]

Do humans not also have minds?

 

[loseyourname]

Before I actually read through all 11 pages, can I ask if anyone has presented an ecological argument for vegetarianism?

 

[darkmage]

Do humans not also have minds?

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, but yes humans have minds (and humans don't eat humans). In addition, I never said it was right to kill other humans. I said that humans most likely won't live in peace because the nature of humans is to fight.

 

[Les Sleeth]

When I first became vegetarian, I did not find it wrong to raise animals for slaughter in general, but I found that our system of production is so horrible that I could not fathom further supporting the system. . . . I do not believe that those who raise animals for food will give much concern to animal welfare. This is especially true given the trend towards larger and larger corporate operations.

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

I thought the arguments presented by Dissident Dan and Kerrie well represented two sides of the moral vegetarian debate. Since I agree and disagree with both of them, I used their general beliefs as a foundation to bounce my comments off of.

I've been a vegetarian for about 32 years, and I can assure you Kerrie neither you nor your children need meat to be healthy. Most doctors who recommend meat are counseling you as meat eaters, and from traditional "food groups" training. For example, when they say meat helps you to absorb certain nutrients you need, they mean that the fat soluable vitamins need fat to be asborbed; other basic principles are that meat has the eight essential amino acids, more iron than most vegetable sources, vitamin b-12, etc. Meat covers several bases nutritionally, but only on the front end. For that convenience, you may pay dearly down the road.

Before I move on to what I disagree with about Dissident Dan's reasons for why we "should" be vegetarians, there is one more reason besides overall health benefits why I like not eating meat: it is easier to digest non-meat stuff. If you know that digestion costs energy, and that what you eat gives energy, then the difference between the energy needed for digestion and the energy you end up with is important. I've have found ways to eat that minimizes the energy of digestion, such as eating sprouted bread made with the combination of sprouts that form a complete protein (check out "Food for Life" sprouted breads).

Even though I can whole-heartedly recommend the vegetarian diet, it isn't because of why Dan says so. Well, some of it is, like the utterly inhumane way slaughter animals are treated. I wish humans would boycott meat eating until both the way animals are raised/kept and how they are slaughtered are done with compassion.

But beyond that, as hard as I've tried I cannot come up with a moral reason why animals shouldn't be killed and eaten. If you are a Darwinist, then you can see killing and eating animals is quite the way things are done in the natural world. If you believe in God, then you can see God created things so that animals eat each other, so obviously God isn't all that worried about it (both possibililties make it VERY difficult to watch nature shows featuring carnivores because sometimes they start eating their victims while they are still alive).

So, I cannot see the moral "should" in meat eating if humane treatment of slaughter animals is factored in. However, I do see an "inner" sort of reason to not eat meat, something that goes beyond health and humane treatment issues.

I grew up around people who were used to slaughtering, and I saw in them a certain insensitivity to other living beings that seems to be what Dan talks about. I think you have to be that way to slaughter. If you've ever seen a pig slaughtered, his throat cut, hung upside down by his feet so the blood drips out, the pig squealing the whole time . . . well, it's not pretty. I know we get to remain unaware of that when we shop at the supermarket, but even that's a kind of deadness. Personally, I prefer to be more sensitive. I don't want to have to shut off my sensitivity for any reason.

So for me, the bottom line for being a vegetarian is, first, the heightened sensitivity not killing gives me; and then, how much easier it is to extract energy from non-dead-rotting-flesh food , along with the healthier life it gives.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Mankind will always be violent. There will always be useless fighting and killing, because this is simply the nature of man.

Things can always improve. People have used such arguments to justify all sorts of the things (slavery, monarchism), but we've progressed passed them.

Moving on to a different point, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat. Killing a plant is almost no different from killing an animal (the only difference being that an animal has a mind). So why not kill an animal instead of a plant? The fact that an animal has a mind is not a strong enough argument to persuade me.

Killing a plant is completely different from killing an animal. The existence of sentience (the ability to experience) is the ONLY legitimate basis for ethics. We know what it is to suffer (bad) and to experience pleasure (good). Everything else is arbitrary.

 

[Dissident Dan]

But beyond that, as hard as I've tried I cannot come up with a moral reason why animals shouldn't be killed and eaten.

I do not make a strong distinction between humans and other species. We are just another species.

If you are a Darwinist, then you can see killing and eating animals is quite the way things are done in the natural world. If you believe in God, then you can see God created things so that animals eat each other, so obviously God isn't all that worried about it (both possibililties make it VERY difficult to watch nature shows featuring carnivores because sometimes they start eating their victims while they are still alive).

I am a Darwinist, but not a Social Darwinist. Evolution and natural selection say nothing of ethics, only how things have occurred. They do not say what is right or wrong or good or bad. They are not things to revere.

I grew up around people who were used to slaughtering, and I saw in them a certain insensitivity to other living beings that seems to be what Dan talks about. I think you have to be that way to slaughter. If you've ever seen a pig slaughtered, his throat cut, hung upside down by his feet so the blood drips out, the pig squealing the whole time . . . well, it's not pretty. I know we get to remain unaware of that when we shop at the supermarket, but even that's a kind of deadness. Personally, I prefer to be more sensitive. I don't want to have to shut off my sensitivity for any reason.

I've heard stories about people who work in slaughterhouses who became abusive of their families.

 

[darkmage]

Killing a plant is completely different from killing an animal. The existence of sentience (the ability to experience) is the ONLY legitimate basis for ethics. We know what it is to suffer (bad) and to experience pleasure (good). Everything else is arbitrary.

That's what I essentially mean when I say "an animal has a mind". And still, I do not find this a sufficient reason as to why one would not eat meat.

 

[Dissident Dan]

That's interesting. I hold the ability to experience as the only legitimate basis for any ethics.

For any linguistic explanation you attempt to give someone as to why something is right or wrong, bad or good, should be done or should be not done, they can always ask, "Why?" There is only one way to get past the infinite string of "Why?"s. That is to invoke the knowledge of experience of the person whom you are talking to. Each of us has experienced. We know what it is to suffer and to experience pleasure. We know the badness of suffering and the goodness of pleasure. It cannot be explained, because language has limitations, but each of us knows this because we know the qualities of these experiences.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not make a strong distinction between humans and other species. We are just another species.

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden , I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

I am a Darwinist, but not a Social Darwinist. Evolution and natural selection say nothing of ethics, only how things have occurred. They do not say what is right or wrong or good or bad. They are not things to revere.

I know you're not a Social Darwinist, but my point was to ask what natural or universal conditions you are relying on to derive your ethics. It is one thing to determine what is ethical for yourself, but this thread is about what is "right" overall, and therefore for the rest of us. For that you need to something more than your compassionate beliefs (besides, if slaughter animals were given a good life, and killed humanely, we've actually improved the way most prey animals die). So I still cannot see the moral/ethic issue here, even if I personally agree with you about killing animals.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden , I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

Sometime in the past year, I have stopped being a preservationist. Applying the idea of morality to other creatures is more limited than application to humans, because the other creatures do not think or communicate on the levels that we do. You can't expect a cat to know why it is wrong to eat a gopher. I find the killing or suffering of any creature unfortunate and saddening, and would do what I could to reduce suffering. I would stop the cat from eating the gophers if able.

I know you're not a Social Darwinist, but my point was to ask what natural or universal conditions you are relying on to derive your ethics.
...

Read my last post (at the end of the last page). You were probably typing this up as I was typing mine.

 

[LuciferPrometheus]

This is my first post. Great topic. It is a topic that only a human would have. Other animals do not concern themselves with the impact of their actions on the rest of the world. Of course, it could be argued that we are the only ones who impact the world enough to unbalance it.

I finally finshed all 11 pages and have a few points.

I do agree that the raising of meat as opposed to plants for consumption is wasteful. Cattle filter the food energy (most easily expressed as calories) that we could be receiving. It takes multiple pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat (aprox. ratios 10:1/cow 6:1/chicken). Not to mention that just by virtue of their stationary position plants are a wiser use of land for food production. Cattle require acres to roam. This is an issue which has to do with global starvation.

My probelem with vegetarians bringing up this reasoning is that they are not too sincere. As a general rule they don't eat foods which necessarily promote global food development. Most "veggie" items are wasteful themselves. Especially the burgers, hot dogs, and other processed "veggie" foods. Also, if you are concerned for global hunger you should boycott organic foods, as this way of creating food energy is less productive.

The probelem is not that we eat meat. It's that we eat too much meat. Even if you believe in the 4 basic food groups, it should be noted that almost everyone eats primarily meat. Our portions our half a plate of meat, some veggies, and some carbs. This is excessive by anyones standards. It is my opinion that if we still had to hunt & gather, we would primarily eat plants peppered with meats. I do not think it is ethical to eat something you would not get yourself. If you can't stomach killing & gutting a cow, then you have no business grabbing a burger. Luckily for me if I was hunting and gathering I'd grab some apples and broccoli on my way to kill/skin/roast a rabbit for dinner.

 

[motai]

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden , I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

As for the responsibility thing; I am not sure that interfering another animals' dinner is necessary (they are doing their instinctive thing), but we as humans should probably stop raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them.

This is my first post. Great topic. It is a topic that only a human would have.

Welcome to PF forums!

 

[Dissident Dan]

When I think about the eating of animals, I wonder why it is such a contentious issue. Is it really such a detestable request that we extend some basic compassion to our fellow creatures? These animals feel and think as we do. For the sake of taste and texture, we subject them to horrors that would elicit immediate, impassioned, nearly-unanimous outcry had humans been subjected to them.

The suffer. They long for their families. They are diseased. They are malnourished. Their bodies are deformed and often unable to support them. Many cannot move. They cannot roam, for they are confined to small stalls, pens, or cages or are cramped in a huge, dark room with thousands of others. They stand or lie in their own excrement on metal or concrete.

Merely so we can satisfy our cravings they endure all this. It is unending for them until they die. What will it take for us to have some mercy? What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?

Is it so radical that think that we should exhibit some decency in how we treat other animals?

 

[russ_watters]

When I think about the eating of animals, I wonder why it is such a contentious issue. Is it really such a detestable request that we extend some basic compassion to our fellow creatures? These animals feel and think as we do. For the sake of taste and texture, we subject them to horrors that would elicit immediate, impassioned, nearly-unanimous outcry had humans been subjected to them.

The suffer. They long for their families. They are diseased. They are malnourished. Their bodies are deformed and often unable to support them. Many cannot move. They cannot roam, for they are confined to small stalls, pens, or cages or are cramped in a huge, dark room with thousands of others. They stand or lie in their own excrement on metal or concrete.

Merely so we can satisfy our cravings they endure all this. It is unending for them until they die. What will it take for us to have some mercy? What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?

Is it so radical that think that we should exhibit some decency in how we treat other animals?

"Detestable request?" I wouldn't characterize it like that. Shortsighted, unrealistic, irrelevant, overly emotional maybe. There's probably another one, but I can't think of the right word. The issue here is simple: the animal kingdom is violent. To pretend otherwise is... see above.

If you personally feel uncomfortable with it, fine. But I don't consider your opinion all that reasonable here. It requires a lot of unreasonable logical leaps and assumptions:

-Animals have feelings: do they?
-We are causing unnecessary pain: are we causing any more pain than already exists? Have you ever watched National Geographic?
-We're better than the animals so we should treat them better: I don't see a logical connection there.
-And the biggie: animals have rights (not sure if you're suggesting that or not): no animals do not have rights.

To answer this one thouh: "What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?" At the very least, evidence that they qualify for rights. Sentience, intelligence, etc. Ie, some reason to consider them equals to us.

edit: slight clarification - I'm not a big fan of the way calves for veal are treated. I think its unnecessary and unreasonable. But the general raising and kiling for food, no.

 

[Dissident Dan]

"Detestable request?" I wouldn't characterize it like that. Shortsighted, unrealistic, irrelevant, overly emotional maybe. There's probably another one, but I can't think of the right word. The issue here is simple: the animal kingdom is violent. To pretend otherwise is... see above.

I'm sure that people said all the same things about those who supported the abolition of human slavery in the USA.
It is not short-sighted.
Unrealistic? only history can tell. Saying such now is to have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Irrelevant? It is only the most important thing I know of.
Overly emotional? It is not any more emotional than saying the same things regarding other human beings. What is overly emotional is letting our prejudices overcome the realizations of how similar we all really are and how irrelevant our differences are.

If you personally feel uncomfortable with it, fine. But I don't consider your opinion all that reasonable here. It requires a lot of unreasonable logical leaps and assumptions:

-Animals have feelings: do they?
-We are causing unnecessary pain: are we causing any more pain than already exists? Have you ever watched National Geographic?
-We're better than the animals so we should treat them better: I don't see a logical connection there.
-And the biggie: animals have rights (not sure if you're suggesting that or not): no animals do not have rights.

1) Animals definitely do feel. Ignoring this, or claiming it as unproven is an unfortunate product of our prejudicial society. Behavior, biology, and evolution all demonstrate that they do feel.
2) We are causing unnecessary pain, because (a) that suffering would not otherwise occur, and (b) eating them is not necessary for our nutritional needs. I understand that there are saddening violences in the wild, which is why I am not a preservationist. However, one misfortune does not justify another misfortune.
3) I don't recall ever saying that we are "better" than animals. All I've said is that we have great abilities to comprehend, and we should use them to understand the moral obligations to other creatures. I'm not sure if I've even said this in a recent post.
4) If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience. There is no question about it.

edit: slight clarification - I'm not a big fan of the way calves for veal are treated. I think its unnecessary and unreasonable. But the general raising and kiling for food, no.

Givent that we do not need to eat them, and even more animals suffer just as much as veal calves (egg-laying chickens, sows, etc.), I find it very unneccesary and unreasonable.

It is not such a very hard thing to do to give up meat, either, provided you don't mind the occasional joke. Hopefully, any adult could deal with that. It really is amazing how quickly one becomes used to a non-animal diet such that hardly does it even feel like restricting oneself.

 

[Rader]

Dissident Dan you got my vote, i agree whith most of what you said. This sounds like the end of the thread. But there is one more consideration, what do we do with all the animals we do not eat. You know they would starve if there was no predators. So what do we do? Ask the predators. The problem does not end with us resolving the problem.

 

[Dayle Record]

The stomach dumps refined sugar, but hangs onto fruit sugar, and fruit, my guess is that it really wants to get at those minerals in the fruit. Coronary ICU's all over our nation are chock full of individuals on the Adkins diet. There were days in the last year where, 1/2 of the individuals I interviewed in the Coronary ICU, were on Adkins. A healthy diet has at least 2 whole fruits a day, and 3-5 servings of vegetables, and not much more than 6 oz of high protein food. The fuel foods, grains, need to be added last and in accordance with activity level. The grains need to be whole.
The number one solvent to facilitate all bodily functions is water, and we should make it easy on the body, by taking that on in pure water form. It is possible to live very well as a vegetarian, and as we move more into the genetic manipulation of animals for transplant tissue, and higher production of milk, and greater muscle mass, we have to remember that the animals that have our genetic material, might engender even more capable viral predators to our species. An example of this is the work done with pigs. Pigs are scavenging animals and therefore have super hardy immune systems. When we lend our wimpy genetic material to them, then their predators have a stab at gearing up to attack our tissues. The pigs might do alright with this, but we might not. The effects of BGH on humans who consume milk, are already showing, up because there are many other imitators of estrogen in the environment now. Very young girls are starting to menstruate, some of these estrogen imitators are in sunscreen, shampoo, cadmium from batteries in the groundwater, so the lower you eat on the food chain, the better off you will be. Even Salmon has gotten into the act now, with GM Farm Salmon, and dyed Salmon. So as in all matters, name your poison. Or name your Poisson.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Dissident Dan you got my vote, i agree whith most of what you said. This sounds like the end of the thread. But there is one more consideration, what do we do with all the animals we do not eat. You know they would starve if there was no predators. So what do we do? Ask the predators. The problem does not end with us resolving the problem.

Well, the fact is that the whole country won't go vegetarian overnight. There would be a tapering off, if people are to leave off eating animals, as demand decreases in a more-or-less smooth fashion. There would be fewer and fewer animals bred to replace the ones slaughtered.

 

[Rader]

Well, the fact is that the whole country won't go vegetarian overnight. There would be a tapering off, if people are to leave off eating animals, as demand decreases in a more-or-less smooth fashion. There would be fewer and fewer animals bred to replace the ones slaughtered.

While I agree with your philosophy, when making philosophical decisions, you have to really think things out. A wrong decision could create more pain and suffering than it was suppose to elimate. Change must be gradual, as abrupt decisions can be catastrophic. Have you seen the data studies if everyone stopped smoking all at once. Half of the planet smokes and from the PF survery 3/4 of us eat meat, so if that is any indication of what the rest of the world does. If we stopped eating meat all at once, the world economy would collapse. It would take a gradual redistribution of weath in other sectors or the decision to stop eating meat would do more harm than good.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure that people said all the same things about those who supported the abolition of human slavery in the USA.

I'm sure that's not even close to the same thing.

4) If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience. There is no question about it.

And you base this on what exactly? Most animals can't even recognize their reflection in a mirror. That's one of the simpler tests of self-awareness.

As for rights, have you discussed rights with your cat? How can you be sure your cat's idea of rights is the same as yours? Your cat clearly doesn't see a moral issue with killing and dismembering that mouse for sport - yet you do. What gives you the right to decide for your cat what is right and wrong for it?

No, Dan, rights were invented by humans for humans. They most certainly were not intended to extend to animals. Though there are a lot of people who think they should be extended to animals, that they were not intended for animals when they were thought up is simply a matter of historical/literary fact: ie, find me a pasage in one of Locke's books about rights where he talks about animal rights.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I have never seen such stupidity in my life as is in this thread. For all of you vegans, do you know how many acres of rain forests have been cleared in South America for guess what: Soybeans. That's right. Thousands of thousands of acres have been cleared for soybeans. South America has lines of trucks hundreds of miles long to dump grain at the terminals. Human life as we know it cannot exist without the consumption of animals. We have socially evolved by moving into cities, getting our food at the supermarket, having the conveniences of computers, automobiles, a pretty damn cushy lifestyle all because of the consumption of animals. So unless you vegans plan on moving out to the middle of nowhere and becoming gatherers that live in grass huts, shut up already. I live and work in ag country. Most land that is suitable for raising crops is used for that. Livestock graze on what we call waste-land. Land that is not suitable for raising crops. So until you agree to move onto this 'wasteland' and become a gatherer of berries and such, cattle will roam on it. They are not all 'couped up' as you would believe. They also don't come close to thinking like a human being. Most of the time they would rather trample you if you get to close to their calf. They don't 'give you the benefit of the doubt' like it is assumed we should give them. I agree, animals should be treated humanly unlike the chickens that are raised nowadays. Until people agree to pay more for their food, that is the way it is going to be.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm sure that's not even close to the same thing.

What makes you say that? You don't think that people called abolitionists unrealistic? Ridding ourselves of human slavery was a revolutionary change. Such revolutionary talk necessarily was called unrealistic. There used to be people who said that black people didn't have feelings. Such people surely called people advocating for black slaves "emotional" or "sentimental".

And you base this on what exactly? Most animals can't even recognize their reflection in a mirror. That's one of the simpler tests of self-awareness.

1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience.
2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant.
3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights?

As for rights, have you discussed rights with your cat? How can you be sure your cat's idea of rights is the same as yours? Your cat clearly doesn't see a moral issue with killing and dismembering that mouse for sport - yet you do. What gives you the right to decide for your cat what is right and wrong for it?

Any creature has an interest in not being harmed.

No, Dan, rights were invented by humans for humans. They most certainly were not intended to extend to animals. Though there are a lot of people who think they should be extended to animals, that they were not intended for animals when they were thought up is simply a matter of historical/literary fact: ie, find me a pasage in one of Locke's books about rights where he talks about animal rights.

Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals. We all have interests. While the nature of those interests have variations between species, the fact that all these different species have the capacities for positive and negative experiences renders us all relatively equal.

It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation. The facts of behavior, biology (structure and process), and common heritage (evolution) show the link between oneself and other animals. These are the same facts upon which we believe in sentience in other humans (although the heritage link was not obvious until about a century and a half ago, and much knowledge of neurology is pretty recent). One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I have never seen such stupidity in my life as is in this thread. For all of you vegans, do you know how many acres of rain forests have been cleared in South America for guess what: Soybeans. That's right. Thousands of thousands of acres have been cleared for soybeans. South America has lines of trucks hundreds of miles long to dump grain at the terminals.

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

BTW, soybeans aren't grains.

Human life as we know it cannot exist without the consumption of animals. We have socially evolved by moving into cities, getting our food at the supermarket, having the conveniences of computers, automobiles, a pretty damn cushy lifestyle all because of the consumption of animals.

This is just not true. Eating animals is much less efficient than eating plants. This would allow more resources to be available for improving living conditions.

Most land that is suitable for raising crops is used for that. Livestock graze on what we call waste-land. Land that is not suitable for raising crops. So until you agree to move onto this 'wasteland' and become a gatherer of berries and such, cattle will roam on it. They are not all 'couped up' as you would believe.

Most of the agricultural land in the USA was once considered "wasteland". Then the "Reclamation of the West" (irrigation) came about. In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant. Also, notice that even grazing animals are fed bundles of hay, which had to be grown in fields elsewhere.

Beef cattle are often allowed to graze before being slaughtered. I live in Florida, where there are many pasture farms. However, I seriously doubt that grazing makes up the majority of the beef industry. Most other animals, including cows used for dairy, are kept in confinement. Birds and pigs get the worst of it. Dairy cows are in pretty bad shape. Here is a link that states that in Minnesota, only a small percentage of dairies graze their cows: http://www.extension.umn.edu/mnimpacts/impact.asp?projectID=2802

For animal welfare, if one is going to eat meat, it seems that eating beef would be the best, both because of the high amount of flesh per animal and the conditions of the animals. However, even many cattle "farms" keep the animals very closely packed, often in dirt or mud, as the following website shows: http://www.factoryfarm.org/resources/photos/cattle/

40% of all beef production comes from two percent of the feedlots, with three companies (IBP, ConAgra and Cargill) having market shares of 35%, 21% and 20% respectively.8

http://www.factoryfarm.org/topics/cattle/facts/

There is also great suffering due to feeding animals drugs and synthetic growth hormones and selective breeding.

I could go on and on, but it is easy to do the research. Tell me if you find any facts contrary to what I'm saying.

They also don't come close to thinking like a human being. Most of the time they would rather trample you if you get to close to their calf. They don't 'give you the benefit of the doubt' like it is assumed we should give them. I agree, animals should be treated humanly unlike the chickens that are raised nowadays. Until people agree to pay more for their food, that is the way it is going to be.

I'm glad that you think that chickens should be treated better, but that does not make it so. As long as there is demand, great suffering will happen. Also, I find it interesting that you try to refute the vegetarian argument using one type of animal (cattle) while acknowledging the confinement the argument regarding birds.

Firstly, a person does not have to treat you well in order for you to treat that person well (a person not necessarily being a human). Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same. Our moral appraisal of the animals doesn't matter. We cannot expect less intelligent creatures to be as good as we are. All that is relevant is that they can experience. Because they can experience, we should extend consideration for them. Due to this consideration, we should stop eating them.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I just dug up the following document: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/pct-bb/catl0104.txt

It states that in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (ranked 1, 3, and 4 in cattle population in 1998 according to http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/ranking/lrank97.htm#allcattle), only 2.9 million (down from 3.7 million in 2003) cattle and cavles are estimated to be grazing on "Small Grain Pasture" in 2004. These states are estimated to have 26.65 million cattle and calves. That means that only 11% are "Grazing on Small Grain Pasture".

 

[Les Sleeth]

As for the responsibility thing; I am not sure that interfering another animals' dinner is necessary (they are doing their instinctive thing), but we as humans should probably stop raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them.

Sorry, I just saw your response. As I said, I personally cannot bear to participate in killing and eating animals. It is the "should" in your statement that makes me hesitate. Killing animials is how the universe works here on planet Earth. I can't see how to derive some morality for all humans from the nature of things, or (especially) from what I find repusive.

 

[Averagesupernova]

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless. Let me clue you in about beef cattle: I own them and as we speak their calves are being born. They choose to drop them out in the dirt. They have the choice to go inside on clean concrete lined with nice fresh straw if they want. They have been inside but still choose the calve elsewhere. As we speak, it is raining. Guess where all the calves are? That's right, outside. Do you feel sorry for them? I do sort of, but not really. Ever hear the phrase 'not smart enough to come in out of the rain'? How about you come out here and convince my cattle to get their calves into the barn? You will soon realize just how different humans are from other animals. For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless
...
For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

 

[russ_watters]

...[re: racism]

The only possible way to connect racism to animal rights is the fact that racism is not now, nor was it ever based on science. It was an emotional issue only. Animal rights is not based on science or philosophy. It is also strictly an emotional issue.

1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience.

Awareness is the other half of the definition of sentience - the part that enables you to have feelings. Otherwise, feelings are indistinguishable from stimulus-response.

2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant.

So how exactly do you test for sentience? Remember: now you are arguing real science. You cannot just assume animals to be senteint. You have to prove it scientifically. From what I understand, there is not much debate about animal sentience in the scientific community (ie, the scientific community does not accept that animals are sentient) except in the case of a handful of higher level mammals. Scientists consider the mirror test to be one of very few valid ones for self-awareness.

3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights?

Quite possibly - and we already do treat them different in a lot of cases. But you wouldn't want to draw a line, would you...? Feel free to argue where that line should be though, if you want.

[re:cats and mice] Any creature has an interest in not being harmed.

Ok, so you're saying cats are immoral. Good. Now, how did you punish this cat for these atrocious acts of immorality? Does your state have a death penalty for example? While we're at it, any animal that has ever killed another animal is guilty of murder, right? They all need to be executed then, don't they? Am I starting to sound at all absurd to you? (I sure hope so)

Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights.

And you base this on what exactly? Which of the great philosophers discussed this issue? AFAIK, the principle authority on rights (Locke) never mentioned animal rights.

As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society.

That is not what I said. Have you read any of the philosophy of rights? Learning the modern understanding of rights would be a good place to start before deciding these concepts can be extended to animals. A little taste: According to Locke, rights are inherrent in humans and are endowed by 'nature' - natural law. To some, that may imply God, to others, it may sound like the laws of science...

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals.

I pointed out several differences - whether you consider them relevant or not, philosophers considered them relevant enough to not even consider the possibility that animals have rights. In order to change that, you will need to come up with some good philosophy/science of your own. Good luck though - part of my cat exercise that you ignored was critical: You certainly have not ever discussed rights with a cat. What if the cat disagrees with you? No, that's not meant to be funny - it really is critical. You want to say animals have rights, yet at the same time you want to force your interpretation of rights on both us and them. It's a catch-22: if they are sentient and therefore worthy of rights, then their opinion matters (and guess what - they outnumber us).

It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation.

All I want you to do is prove it. Prove they are sentient. Prove they are worthy of rights. Prove they will agree with us on what rights are.

One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

Interesting that you'd bring that up: the part of the brain where conscious thought resides is the cerebrum. The front. You just gave an important piece of evidence against those emotions being connected with conscious thought but rather just being pre-programmed stimulus-response. The cerebral cortex is what makes humans different from other animals.

There is a great Far Side cartoon where a wife paramecium is nagging her husband: 'stimulus/response, stimulus/response - don't you ever think?!' Important question and you are assuming the answer to be yes.